Schotz-Powers Co. v. Treidler

128 Misc. 466, 219 N.Y.S. 4, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 797
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided December 15, 1926·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

As the occupation of the demised premises, by reason of the violation of zoning and building department regulations, was unlawful, the tenant was justified in rescinding the lease and abandoning possession, and no recovery can be had by the landlord for rent during such unlawful occupation or by the tenant for rent paid. Since it does not appear that after the making of the lease the landlord could not have obtained the [467] necessary departmental permits, the lease itself was not unlawful in its inception, and the tenant is entitled to recover the deposit made to secure performance of the lease.

Judgment reversed, with $30 costs, and complaint dismissed on the merits, and judgment directed for defendant for $229.17, with interest and costs.

All concur; present, Delehanty, Lydon and O’Malley, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Schotz-Powers Co. v. Treidler, 128 Misc. 466, 219 N.Y.S. 4, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 797 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1926).

128 Misc. 466 (Schotz-Powers Co. v. Treidler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mateo v. Anokwuru
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017